Imagine micro variations as you jumping a small crack in the ground... Now imagine a macro change as a canyon, how can you cross the canyon with only small jumps. You need multiple "jumps" to cross it, but the concept of one at a time will never work since the person would fall.

That is how it works in nature, unless the trait works first time everytime it will be selected against hence you'd need all the "jumps" at once (like in the canyon analogy)

I believe in a flood 4300 years ago. There has been such amazing micro-evolution changes in such a short period, I do not doubt that over longer periods of millions of years entirely unrecognisable species would emerge from the original species. So yes, we have many varieties of dogs, but one day the wolf will be so different to the poodle that they couldn't breed from a biological point of view and the universal dog-like look that we see today will be even more blurred. Also some would specialise in certain environments to such an extent that the pronounced differences would be so observable as to make them appear and behave completely differently to current dogs. So although I do not see macro-evolution as a current observable reality, nevertheless I do agree with evolutionists that it is possible given the nature's natural tendency to diversify.

I am not saying macro-evolution is observable, or evidenced in the fossil record, I am saying that micro-evolution is so rapid as to make eventual macro-evolution highly likely.

I believe in a flood 4300 years ago. There has been such amazing micro-evolution changes in such a short period, I do not doubt that over longer periods of millions of years entirely unrecognisable species would emerge from the original species. So yes, we have many varieties of dogs, but one day the wolf will be so different to the poodle that they couldn't breed from a biological point of view and the universal dog-like look that we see today will be even more blurred. Also some would specialise in certain environments to such an extent that the pronounced differences would be so observable as to make them appear and behave completely differently to current dogs. So although I do not see macro-evolution as a current observable reality, nevertheless I do agree with evolutionists that it is possible given the nature's natural tendency to diversify.

I am not saying macro-evolution is observable, or evidenced in the fossil record, I am saying that micro-evolution is so rapid as to make eventual macro-evolution highly likely.

Is this just your opinion? May I ask what evidence do you base your opinion on?

Is this just your opinion? May I ask what evidence do you base your opinion on?

Or is it just

- nature changes over time therefore evolution is "highly likely"

Its my opinion, based on the fact that micro -evolution is extremely rapid and observable. If you project the changes over 4000 years to continue at the rate they are, it only seems natural that the current range of subspecies would diversify even more, and so eventual macro-evolution does seem likely to me.

Its my opinion, based on the fact that micro -evolution is extremely rapid and observable. If you project the changes over 4000 years to continue at the rate they are, it only seems natural that the current range of subspecies would diversify even more, and so eventual macro-evolution does seem likely to me.

I don't know what the rate of change is. If it is "extremely rapid" then the fact that the fossil record shows stasis in many animals after millions and millions of years should raise more eyebrows than are being raised today, don't you think?

Macro-evolution is vastly different to simply branching out into variations. It involves the creation of completely new organs as well as dramatic restructuring of existing organs. Observing changes is not the same as observing the kind of orchestration that macro-evolution demands. It goes way beyond that!

As far as I can tell, evolution is an exercise in gullabiltiy, wrapped up in candy-floss by athiests, and swallowed by Christians.

I don't know what the rate of change is. If it is "extremely rapid" then the fact that the fossil record shows stasis in many animals after millions and millions of years should raise more eyebrows than are being raised today, don't you think?

Macro-evolution is vastly different to simply branching out into variations. It involves the creation of completely new organs as well as dramatic restructuring of existing organs. It would demand the kind of orchestration that goes far beyond what time + death could accomplish.

As far as I can tell, evolution is an exercise in gullabiltiy, wrapped up in candy-floss by athiests, and swallowed by Christians.

I agree with you that in many cases evolution cannot explain the existence of complex organs , which would definitely point to a creator. Nevertheless I don't see why creatures cannot evolve in the future, ie evolutionists have correctly seen the possibilities, but wrongly applied this to the fossil record. To deny the possibility of creatures to evolve, is to deny the adaptability and survival mechanisms that God deliberately placed in creatures, so that the DNA of the offspring always differs to the parent wihout a need for mutations. I agree with you that this could never explain some complex organs in biology, but I don't see why a new species cannot develop, and I don't see a semantic requirement that a new species has to have changed organs. So I think the creationist views would be more palatable to evolutionists if we admit that the mechanisms they support could actually work.

I agree with you that in many cases evolution cannot explain the existence of complex organs , which would definitely point to a creator. Nevertheless I don't see why creatures cannot evolve in the future, ie evolutionists have correctly seen the possibilities, but wrongly applied this to the fossil record. To deny the possibility of creatures to evolve, is to deny the adaptability and survival mechanisms that God deliberately placed in creatures, so that the DNA of the offspring always differs to the parent wihout a need for mutations. I agree with you that this could never explain some complex organs in biology, but I don't see why a new species cannot develop, and I don't see a semantic requirement that a new species has to have changed organs. So I think the creationist views would be more palatable to evolutionists if we admit that the mechanisms they support could actually work.

It is not easy to say what is "possible", or "impossible" in the distant future (given the possibility that we will continue living indefinately despite rejecting God on an increasing level).

But I can't see any evidence, either scientific and scriptural, that indicate that time + death = development. Can you?

I am not sure, but I think some evolutionists object to calling evolution "development", but in my book, the change from a single cell organism to a being who can reason, recite poetry, send people to the moon and debate issues such as these, and so on, has definitely developed.

So are we developing???

Technology definitely is.

But scripture tells us that creation is in "bondage to decay" (Rom 8:21). And that is what I believe.

I agree with you that in many cases evolution cannot explain the existence of complex organs , which would definitely point to a creator. Nevertheless I don't see why creatures cannot evolve in the future, ie evolutionists have correctly seen the possibilities, but wrongly applied this to the fossil record. To deny the possibility of creatures to evolve, is to deny the adaptability and survival mechanisms that God deliberately placed in creatures, so that the DNA of the offspring always differs to the parent wihout a need for mutations. I agree with you that this could never explain some complex organs in biology, but I don't see why a new species cannot develop, and I don't see a semantic requirement that a new species has to have changed organs. So I think the creationist views would be more palatable to evolutionists if we admit that the mechanisms they support could actually work.

Of course things chnge, adapt and survive. However such a thing is not evolution, it is merely adaption via variation. Some can say that this variation is what occured after the flood so that the small amount of animals can give rise to the biodiversity we see today.

As Uppsala said before, macro evolution is totally different to variation (micro), since it involves more than just variants of the same part, rather completely new parts and systems to begin with. Hence the mechanisms they suggest do not work for them, (in other words they are attempting to call an apple, an orange... it won't work)

As Uppsala said before, macro evolution is totally different to variation (micro), since it involves more than just variants of the same part, rather completely new parts and systems to begin with. Hence the mechanisms they suggest do not work for them, (in other words they are attempting to call an apple, an orange... it won't work)

I agree with this, only differing on a semantic level. ie some define a new species as one unable to breed with the other subspecies, with no requirement for actual new organs and new parts. However to a certain extent variants through adaptation can result in a usage of a body part that the species was not originally intended for. For example a certain breed of bird could develop a longer beak due to feeding on grubs in holes which become their primary food source. This would be through selective breeding, with the most succesful male being attracted to the most succesful females, both having the most time to find a mate because of their more succesful feeding habits. After selective breeding for some time, their could be an ecological event that makes grubs the only food source in the area. End result is that the new subspecies is the only subspecies that survives the area, and when compared to the original species, the new subspecies has developed long beaks for eating grubs that the bird was not created for. The bird was however created with the genetic ability to adapt, and so parts can change very rapidly to suit the environment. Paws can get harder, or softer, land animals could adapt to trees, tree animals to land, and imbs adapt and specialise accordingly. It all depends on survival of the fittest, God made that possible when he created hardy creatures 6000 years . To argue against this point just makes creationists look foolish because instinctively if we are honest with ourselves, we know that is how nature works, God made us able to adapt and able to choose the most suitable matching mate. This is why skins get whiter as you go towards colder climes, skins get darker as you head to the equator. This is why certain butterflies can change their dominant colour quickly to suit the environment, this is why polar bears are white, why Hawaiins have the "fat" gene. Survival and selective breeding since the flood.

1. However to a certain extent variants through adaptation can result in a usage of a body part that the species was not originally intended for. For example a certain breed of bird could develop a longer beak due to feeding on grubs in holes which become their primary food source. This would be through selective breeding, with the most succesful male being attracted to the most succesful females, both having the most time to find a mate because of their more succesful feeding habits.

2. After selective breeding for some time, their could be an ecological event that makes grubs the only food source in the area. End result is that the new subspecies is the only subspecies that survives the area, and when compared to the original species, the new subspecies has developed long beaks for eating grubs that the bird was not created for.

3. The bird was however created with the genetic ability to adapt, and so parts can change very rapidly to suit the environment. Paws can get harder, or softer, land animals could adapt to trees, tree animals to land, and imbs adapt and specialise accordingly. It all depends on survival of the fittest, God made that possible when he created hardy creatures 6000 years . To argue against this point just makes creationists look foolish because instinctively if we are honest with ourselves, we know that is how nature works, God made us able to adapt and able to choose the most suitable matching mate.

4. This is why skins get whiter as you go towards colder climes, skins get darker as you head to the equator. This is why certain butterflies can change their dominant colour quickly to suit the environment, this is why polar bears are white, why Hawaiins have the "fat" gene. Survival and selective breeding since the flood.

1. As I said before, having the ability to variate is not evolution. A bird with a beak is a bird with a beak even if it is long or short it is still a bird. Therefore no evolution, therefore no evidence of evolution.

2. Sub-species = Breed = Same species = Variation = No evolution

We all agree that things variate, however they do so within their allocated kinds, ie you do not see a bird "evolve" into a land dwelling mammal.

3. No one has argued against variation, so what you say here is a strawman.

4. Actually eskimo people have dark skin despite being in the coldest climate of them all... so that kinda blows a hole in your idea here..

I can also ask the same of Tasmanian Aboriginals... Since Tassy is a very cold place compared to the rest of Australia, (one of the few places in Australia where it actually snows), using your logic they should have been all white, (no racist meanings intended). I am sorry to say that your statement is a result of flawed evolutionary thinking.

1. As I said before, having the ability to variate is not evolution. A bird with a beak is a bird with a beak even if it is long or short it is still a bird. Therefore no evolution, therefore no evidence of evolution.

2. Sub-species = Breed = Same species = Variation = No evolution

We all agree that things variate, however they do so within their allocated kinds, ie you do not see a bird "evolve" into a land dwelling mammal.

3. No one has argued against variation, so what you say here is a strawman.

4. Actually eskimo people have dark skin despite being in the coldest climate of them all... so that kinda blows a hole in your idea here..

I can also ask the same of Tasmanian Aboriginals... Since Tassy is a very cold place compared to the rest of Australia, (one of the few places in Australia where it actually snows), using your logic they should have been all white, (no racist meanings intended). I am sorry to say that your statement is a result of flawed evolutionary thinking.

I wasn't saying that there is an exact consistent correlation between lines of latitude and skin colour, just a general visible trend of skin colours being more suitable to the environments.

Well we both agree that there's only been 6000 years of variation, I see the possiblities (just through continuous variation) for new species. How would you prove macro-evolution is impossible over millions of years, knowing the extent of variations over thousands of years? Is this based on the fact that you have not yet observed it over 6000 years?

I wasn't saying that there is an exact consistent correlation between lines of latitude and skin colour, just a general visible trend of skin colours being more suitable to the environments.

Well we both agree that there's only been 6000 years of variation, I see the possiblities (just through continuous variation) for new species. How would you prove macro-evolution is impossible over millions of years, knowing the extent of variations over thousands of years? Is this based on the fact that you have not yet observed it over 6000 years?

Easy, there was no "millions of years" so that kind of refutes by itself. I base this on the fact that there are observed fossilised trees running through multiple stratas which were dated to be separated by "millions of years". This concisely debunks the claim of millions of years. If you have definitive evidence of millions of years please show it.

Seriously though, if you read my post before you'd know the answer

Variations are not the same as macro-evolution. Macro changes ie- fish to mammal require completely new systems. Variations of the same system will not give rise to a completely new system, (and if you claim as such I'd like to see the evidence first).

IC systems cannot be changed to become another over time, it defies logic. An analogy for this would be attempting to convert a motor engine running on petrol to gas whilst it is still running. However even this analogy is stacked in the evolutionists favour since its still an engine and thus performs the same function. An even better analogy would be to convert a toaster into a washing machine.

Keep in mind that for each small step there must be a fitness benefit, otherwise it will not be selected for and thus defy the evolution concept anyway. Yet considering the nature of these IC systems all parts are required in order for there to be any benefit at all.

Consider the supposed transition of the fish to mammal, here is a list of the changes required before it could live successfully on land.

1- "evolve" legs2. "evolve" support structure to hold body weight on legs3- "evolve" nerves and brain function to control legs4- "evolve" lungs5- "evolve" brain function for autonomous lung function6- "evolve" different digestive system + eating habits to survive eating the different food available7- "evolve" protection to the sun, (since the fish is now out of the refracting water which protects it)8- "evolve" different location of spine- running along the back not through the middle like most fish9- "evolve" a mate at the same time in the same whereabouts for this mammal-fish to propogate...

Now consider all these things (bar 9) are required on DAY 1 of being a mammal-fish, no lungs it suffocates, no legs cannot walk, etc

How would this occur? Either it "evolved" straight away or it occured before. Now it can't have occurred straight away as that defies the original evolutionary concept (and is part of the "hopeful monster" idea), so if it occured before DAY 1 of being a mammal-fish, how was it selected for?

Consider that each step must have an advantage otherwise it will not be selected for (this is the evolutionists own rule). Hence all these things could not have "evolve" before they were required as there is no selection advantage to account for this. Actually having lungs when you live in the ocean 100% of the time isn't a great idea, (drowning and all that), as well as the spine moving beforehand would impede how the fish swam... (SO a decrease in fitness)

Easy, there was no "millions of years" so that kind of refutes by itself. I base this on the fact that there are observed fossilised trees running through multiple stratas which were dated to be separated by "millions of years". This concisely debunks the claim of millions of years. If you have definitive evidence of millions of years please show it.

I am a creationist, I believe life-forms were created 6000 years ago and so agree with you that macro-evolution has not been observable yet. I also agree that there has not been millions of years. Additionally I agree that some organs are impossible to evolve because of their complexity. Nevertheless I believe that God created the mechanism of evolution through variation possible in order to make species more hardy and less vulnerable to environmental changes. Thus the very nature of breeding ensures that the offspring are never genetically identical to the parents. It is this genetic diversity that can allow for specialisation when the environment requires it, and there is no limit to the possible extent of the specialisation over time. Thus there is no limit to which any limb or organ can deviate over time through natural selection and genetic variation. If there is no limit, this would mean extreme variations are possible, but obviously not including the spontaneous appearance of complicated organs.

Here's a hypothetical example that is conceivable, even if unrealistic: Imagine taking a whole lot of trout with larger than average pectoral fins and breeding them together. Imagine then taking the offspring with the largest pectoral fins relative to body size and breeding them together. By continuously doing this you would end up with trout with proportionately extremely large pectoral fins. Then place thousands of them in an environment where it is only possible to feed from insects that do not come close to the surface. Trout like to leap to eat insects. Some of those trout will start to naturally pick up on the aerodynamic effects of their large pectoral fins, and start to use them to add an inch or more to their glide when they leap out of the water to feed. Then remove the ones that have shown the slightest ability to use their pectoral fins aerodynamically, and breed them together , again focussing on the largest pectoral fins. Keep doing this selection process and keep mainly providing high flying insects to feed on, and you could just end up with trout with massive pectoral fins with the ability to glide. New species with a new ability unrelated to how they were originally designed. Fins that were only designed for swimming become also used as wings, we have a new species.

So we may all find this scenario laughably unrealistic, or impossible to actually carry out. But its not genetically impossible. Neither does it contradict the bible in any manner, it merely highlights how well God has made creatures , with the ability to adapt through genetic differences of offspring.

I am a creationist, I believe life-forms were created 6000 years ago and so agree with you that macro-evolution has not been observable yet. I also agree that there has not been millions of years. Additionally I agree that some organs are impossible to evolve because of their complexity. Nevertheless I believe that God created the mechanism of evolution through variation possible in order to make species more hardy and less vulnerable to environmental changes. Thus the very nature of breeding ensures that the offspring are never genetically identical to the parents. It is this genetic diversity that can allow for specialisation when the environment requires it, and there is no limit to the possible extent of the specialisation over time. Thus there is no limit to which any limb or organ can deviate over time through natural selection and genetic variation. If there is no limit, this would mean extreme variations are possible, but obviously not including the spontaneous appearance of complicated organs.

Here's a hypothetical example that is conceivable, even if unrealistic: Imagine taking a whole lot of trout with larger than average pectoral fins and breeding them together. Imagine then taking the offspring with the largest pectoral fins relative to body size and breeding them together. By continuously doing this you would end up with trout with proportionately extremely large pectoral fins. Then place thousands of them in an environment where it is only possible to feed from insects that do not come close to the surface. Trout like to leap to eat insects. Some of those trout will start to naturally pick up on the aerodynamic effects of their large pectoral fins, and start to use them to add an inch or more to their glide when they leap out of the water to feed. Then remove the ones that have shown the slightest ability to use their pectoral fins aerodynamically, and breed them together , again focussing on the largest pectoral fins. Keep doing this selection process and keep mainly providing high flying insects to feed on, and you could just end up with trout with massive pectoral fins with the ability to glide. New species with a new ability unrelated to how they were originally designed. Fins that were only designed for swimming become also used as wings, we have a new species.

So we may all find this scenario laughably unrealistic, or impossible to actually carry out. But its not genetically impossible. Neither does it contradict the bible in any manner, it merely highlights how well God has made creatures , with the ability to adapt through genetic differences of offspring.

Whilst that may seem logical to you, in reality (where it counts), there is a limit to change.

This is observed by breeders everywhere. For example I cannot breed a pig as big as a house.... Its body will be too big for its heart and lungs, leg problems etc. I mentioned this recently in post 2 of this very thread, so I suggest you have a read of that.

To repeat the summary, there are limits to how much an animal can deviate, these limits are imposed by the physical properties themselves and how the animal interacts with the environment. Yes animals can variate according to environmental conditions, but only to a degree. This is further supported by the fact that we have extinctions, if things could variate to become anything then there would be much less extinctions, than what is occurring.

Whilst that may seem logical to you, in reality (where it counts), there is a limit to change.

This is observed by breeders everywhere. For example I cannot breed a pig as big as a house.... Its body will be too big for its heart and lungs, leg problems etc. I mentioned this recently in post 2 of this very thread, so I suggest you have a read of that.

To repeat the summary, there are limits to how much an animal can deviate, these limits are imposed by the physical properties themselves and how the animal interacts with the environment. Yes animals can variate according to environmental conditions, but only to a degree. This is further supported by the fact that we have extinctions, if things could variate to become anything then there would be much less extinctions, than what is occurring.

Variation occurs by small logical jumps, and obviously cannot keep up with the major upheavals that the earth has experienced. This explains the extinctions.

As for the limitations, agreed there are some limitations, but this does not mean there always has to be environmental or biological limitations. My trout example could work, or it could flop. I do not see the principle that all extreme variations have to flop. Also the rapidity of the breeding method is too fast for the more natural processes to take place, where the variation is introduced slowly and in numbers over time so that a mean "best fit" of body mass to lung capacity to size etc can fit in with the variation. Through sheer numers and time, the best possible combination of factors can be established within a new breed.

Variation occurs by small logical jumps, and obviously cannot keep up with the major upheavals that the earth has experienced. This explains the extinctions.

As for the limitations, agreed there are some limitations, but this does not mean there always has to be environmental or biological limitations. My trout example could work, or it could flop. I do not see the principle that all extreme variations have to flop. Also the rapidity of the breeding method is too fast for the more natural processes to take place, where the variation is introduced slowly and in numbers over time so that a mean "best fit" of body mass to lung capacity to size etc can fit in with the variation. Through sheer numers and time, the best possible combination of factors can be established within a new breed.

Variation occurs by small logical jumps, and obviously cannot keep up with the major upheavals that the earth has experienced. This explains the extinctions.

As for the limitations, agreed there are some limitations, but this does not mean there always has to be environmental or biological limitations. My trout example could work, or it could flop. I do not see the principle that all extreme variations have to flop. Also the rapidity of the breeding method is too fast for the more natural processes to take place, where the variation is introduced slowly and in numbers over time so that a mean "best fit" of body mass to lung capacity to size etc can fit in with the variation. Through sheer numers and time, the best possible combination of factors can be established within a new breed.

Let me know when you get some evidence to fit this idea because right now its just hypothetical, right now the observations and thus the evidence fits what I have claimed. I didn't say all have limits, but that limitation is a commonly occurring thing. It could be possible to create new "species" however that boils down to how you interpret species, I've had a guest lecturer who claimed that breeds of squid (who had the potential to interbreed), were different species (thus defying one of the species concept I was taught), hence under his definition new "species" arose all the time, (as new breeds of the same thing).

With your fish example it won't work. There are many other principles of aerodynamics that the fish would need to follow before such a thing is possible. It would fail for the same reason I can't get the same proportional sized "fins-wings" and can float off a cliff.

1- Not enough lift, yes it is jumping out of the water, however there is not enough lift to actually keep the fish in the air.2- Too heavy, (birds have hollow bones and minimal organs and body mass to ensure minimal weight for flying)3- Too much drag, (the other parts of the fish are not suited for "flying" thus will cause too much drag and will impede gliding).

Perhaps if the fins were the size of a hang glider is proportional to a human, however such "fins" would no longer be useful for swimming and thus will give a negative fitness, thus will not be selected for anyway

In terms of the best fit body mass / lungs. Yes there is room for improvement however as I said with the pig example in post 2, there would also be leg problems. This is actually observed in real life so your hypothetical justification doesn't fit the reality we see. If you knew how to make stock animals much larger than "normal" you would be a millionaire, since that is what farmers are trying to achieve.

EDIT: If things cannot keep up with the changes in the environment isn't that proof against the "power of natural selection" that evolutionists tout. The sad fact is that very rarely selection pressures stay constant for a long time. This means that for selection to occur in the real world evolution would have to happen quite fast since if you took say 50 years of environmental change it would average out, (perhaps not for "global warming" but that is another issue, and one that people are worried will cause extinctions anyway). Hence even selection pressures that we observe defy the evolutionist model for change

Let me know when you get some evidence to fit this idea because right now its just hypothetical, right now the observations and thus the evidence fits what I have claimed.

I agree with you here, I just think that life-forms ahven't yet had enough time to evolve , that is why there is so little evidence. We just see many subspecies developing from an original species like the lion and the leopard, the poodle and the wolf. You are right that its hypothetical, which is my whole point.

To clarify, my whole point is that hypothetically evolutionists could be right about the mechanism of variation eventually leading to macro-evolution and so we shouldnt be so fast to make it sound impossible when the possibility does exist.

I didn't say all have limits, but that limitation is a commonly occurring thing. It could be possible to create new "species" however that boils down to how you interpret species, I've had a guest lecturer who claimed that breeds of squid (who had the potential to interbreed), were different species (thus defying one of the species concept I was taught), hence under his definition new "species" arose all the time, (as new breeds of the same thing).

Yes, this definition of a new species also affects the argument. Obviously the more wider the interpretation of species and macro-evolution the easier it is to believe in the possibility of macro-evolution.

With your fish example it won't work. There are many other principles of aerodynamics that the fish would need to follow before such a thing is possible. It would fail for the same reason I can't get the same proportional sized "fins-wings" and can float off a cliff.

1- Not enough lift, yes it is jumping out of the water, however there is not enough lift to actually keep the fish in the air.2- Too heavy, (birds have hollow bones and minimal organs and body mass to ensure minimal weight for flying)3- Too much drag, (the other parts of the fish are not suited for "flying" thus will cause too much drag and will impede gliding).

I hear you, and you could be right. However flying fish that do exist have light bodies and pectoral fins closer to the centre of their bodies instead of right at the front. I would assume the especially bred trout would start to resemble something like those flying fish.

In terms of the best fit body mass / lungs. Yes there is room for improvement however as I said with the pig example in post 2, there would also be leg problems. This is actually observed in real life so your hypothetical justification doesn't fit the reality we see. If you knew how to make stock animals much larger than "normal" you would be a millionaire, since that is what farmers are trying to achieve

I wasn't referring here to size only, but any variation, if not occurring too fast, would suit those specimens that have the variation along with other organs varied to better suit the new variation. With regard to size there are specific limitations under current atmospheric conditions that cannot be overcome, and so large size increases are currently impossible..

EDIT: If things cannot keep up with the changes in the environment isn't that proof against the "power of natural selection" that evolutionists tout. The sad fact is that very rarely selection pressures stay constant for a long time. This means that for selection to occur in the real world evolution would have to happen quite fast since if you took say 50 years of environmental change it would average out, (perhaps not for "global warming" but that is another issue, and one that people are worried will cause extinctions anyway). Hence even selection pressures that we observe defy the evolutionist model for change

I would agree with this. I believe the observable fossil record shows a series of dominance by various categories of animals, which does not prove they did not exist before , but proves that they were rare enough before not be proliferate in the previous layers. This does not mean they evolved, the new species merely were previously rare and then became dominant because of new environmental conditions.

Variation occurs by small logical jumps, and obviously cannot keep up with the major upheavals that the earth has experienced. This explains the extinctions.

This is something that I have often thought about before. The major upheavals, as you point out would be way too short and abrupt to cause the kind of changes that macro-evolution requires. On the other hand, what kind of environmental changes do we have left that aren't simply fluctuations? I think fluctuations would cause adaptions that also just fluctuate rather than "small logical jumps" (such as the length of finch beaks, to use a worn-out example).

However flying fish that do exist have light bodies and pectoral fins closer to the centre of their bodies instead of right at the front.

Why wouldn't they? We have characteristics that suit the environment in which we live, so do birds, so do dogs, so do cats, rats, bears, elefants, foxes, ants, orangutans, kitchen sinks, whales, and so on...

(although I have to admit I threw in the kitchen sink for effect)

Why is a well-adapted organism so often considered stronger evidence of evolution than design?

I would assume the especially bred trout would start to resemble something like those flying fish.